Assign auth. object to infoprovider

Hello,
i have transported a auth object zsales_orgn to production. have transported the queries, roles etc.
i realised that the infoproviders are not assigned to this object.
when i go to rssm->enter this object->select check for infocubes->change
i dont see any cubes in the list. how do i assign this object to a cube??
PLEASE SUGGEST?

hi S B,
to transport the authorization object itself, try SE03-> change object directory entry, in next screen, use SUSO (type in below DTEL) and reporting authorization object name, after that change package with icon pencil 'object directory'.
RSSM for infoobject assignment to infoprovider
How to Transport the Authorization Object
hope this helps.

Similar Messages

Custom TCODE-Auth Object Assignment

Hello All- I see a very weird thing with custom TCODE assignment, here is what I see:
1)We have Display role which has all functions tcodes in it, which goes to every one on PRD.
2)Usually we assign custom tcodes which are not critical to this role, and this custom tcode would have no auth objects assigned or checked during access.
3)When I assign custom tcode to test role, I see its not pulling auth objects in PFCG which is what I expected.
***4)However when I assign this custom tcode to 'Display role' which have many standard tcodes in it, I see many of the auth objects "lights turning in to Yellow" (as you know its asking me to maintain value)
5)I checked in SU24/SU22, to see if its pulling any auth objects...no objects are tied to this tcode.
I dont know why this is happening?
Again if I assign to test role, no objects is showing up in PFCG which is what I want!
Any suggestions of to handle this issue, I will really appreciate your thoughts.
Thanks,
AJ

AJ wrote:>
> Hello All- I see a very weird thing with custom TCODE assignment, here is what I see:
> ***4)However when I assign this custom tcode to 'Display role' which have many standard tcodes in it, I see many of the auth objects "lights turning in to Yellow" (as you know its asking me to maintain value)
> 5)I checked in SU24/SU22, to see if its pulling any auth objects...no objects are tied to this tcode.
>
> I dont know why this is happening?
>
> Again if I assign to test role, no objects is showing up in PFCG which is what I want!
>
This is happening not because of the Custom TCodes you have added. The reason are either of the following:
1. In previous cases when some other TCodes (SAP Standard) were added, the the profile regeneration was not carried out by entering Authorization data through "Expert Mode for Profile Generation" (or used with option "Edit Old Status" only). Instead, "Change Authorization Data" was used. And thus the Object proposals for New entries in Menu were not pulled into Profile Generator at that time. Now it's coming. Surely you entered with Expert Mode for Profile Generation --> Read Old status and Merge with New data.
2. Other option can be: Earlier some Objects were changed which were present there only with "Standard" status. It should have been done by copying the Object and change the copied one. Then make the standard one "Inactive".
3. The Inactive Object described in the 2nd point has been Deleted and the object with status "Changed" is left only. Now when you are entering with "Expert Mode for Profile Generation" it's pulling those standard proposals again.
Let me know if the probable reason of Yellow traffic lights are clear to you or need more details.
Regards,
Dipanjan

Auth objects required for creating super,power,end user roles

Hi ,
I need to create 3 roles according to the below requirement. can you tell me what auth objects req inorder to fulfill customer requirement.
1.     Super User:
     Have the access to Create/Modify/Delete own queries
     Can create Variables, CKF, Structures, Formulas & RKF at the cube level (global)
2.     Power User :
     Have the access to Create/Modify/Delete own queries
     Can create Structures, Formulas at the query level
3.     End User
     Have the access to run and navigate reports at the local level
Hope I will get reply soon
Thanks

Karunakar -
Few things you have to keep in mind when you are giving access to the reports and queries.
S_RS_COMP only will not do.
have you assigned S_RS_COMP1 and S_RS_MPRO for info areas and multi/info providers.
and one more auth object S_RS_ICUBE for info cubes. you have to assign what ever the info cubes that you need to give access to the users.
Then only user will get full access.
precisely in order you can say,
S_RS_COMP
S_RS_COMP1
S_RS_ICUBE
and S_RS_MPRO.
These are main auth objects which are related to info cube, info area access and BEx access.
Hope this would give you clear pic.

Auth Objects on ME23N

Hi Guys,
I'm trying to find the authorisation objects that control the GRIR information on the Display PO's tcode - ME23N.
I have to seperate roles with ME23N tcode - one shows the GRIR info on the details section and the other not.
Just trying to understand which auth object controls the display and which values to assign to have it displayed or not.
Rgds,
Thinus

I use SU24 to see which auth objects is involved.
The problem I have is that the amounts on the Purchase Order History tab is not showing when I assign one role, but when I assign the other, it does.
I guess what I should do is do a comparison on the auth objects and values with the 2 ME23N's in both roles.
This might give me an indication on the possible differences.
Comments??

How we can show authorization object at infoprovider level

hi all
how we can show authorization object at infoprovider level..
shalini

S_RS_ICUBE:
          Auth objects for working with Infocubes and their sub-objects. For example,
          protecting users who can define the Infocube, applying update rules, and
          looking at the data in the Infocube.
In order to execute any query, u must have access to R_RS_ICUBE and S_RS_COMP. S_RS_COMP is
a powerful object that enables u to make choices on how to secure.

Job role design - transaction role and auth object role

Hi all, please kindly comment following job role design:
(1) transaction role:
Keep transactions in single job role to represent business processes in different application areas, e.g.MM: maintain PR, PO, OA. CO: maintain cost center, internal order HR: maintain org structure, personnel management.
The single job role will only keep role menu, object S_TCODE and inactivated all other application related authorization objects.
(2) authorization role
Keep application component related authorzation objects except S_TCODE in single job role by different application area, e.g. Objects of MM_B, MM_E, MM_G in MM role. Objects of K_CCA, K_CSKS_SET in CO role. Objects of HR in HR role.
Then maintain org level of MM, CO, HR roles for different companies, e.g. Company A MM role, company A CO role, company A HR role, company B MM role.;....
User will be assigned transaction role + auth object role. For example, user of company A to perform MM and CO functions will be assigned
with MM transaction role + company A MM role + company A CO role.
Please let me know the pros and cons of above design. Thanks.
Regards,
Donald
* I can see the disadvantage of this design is during SAP upgrade (SU25), revised of authorization object will not reflect in authorization role

Brent Van Dyck wrote:
Keep in mind the project was for an HCM implementation where there's already hardly any connection between tcodes and authorization values so it may have made more sense in that context than it would in a classic SD/MM.
That is correct - but it still exceeds "horrible" beyond imaginable boundaries if you try to split the fields of the objects into different roles and expect it to work or that there will be less roles.
In the case of HCM and also BW the auths admin needs to know more about the data and organization than what classic ERP auths admins can get away with. That is why they take longer to migrate away from manual profiles and have a greater tendency to have manual authorizations inserted into roles - which could however also be achieved by maintaining fields proposed without values and at least proposing those (such as activity type fields) which are known.
But splitting cube / characteristics / key figures or infotype / personel group / auth code into different roles can only go wrong.
Another mistake some "value role experts" sometimes make is that they don't want Su24 proposals in PFCG because they don't understand them. So what they do is that they clean out the SU24 tables completely... Well... the side affect of that is that all SU24 check indicators flagged as "no check" suddenly become alive in their system although there are mostly good reasons not to have the checks active.
Cheers,
Julius

Same Auth Objects CM in su24

Hi All
In SU24 for a Tcode SU01 in S_TCODE the following auth objects are CM.
S_USER_AGR
S_USER_AUT
S_USER_GRP
S_USER_PRO
S_USER_SAS
& for Tcode PFCG
S_USER_AGR
S_USER_AUT
S_USER_GRP
S_USER_PRO
S_USER_SAS
I am developing a role initially with SU01 Tcode. For the auth object S_USER_AGR, I am giving 01,02,03,06 field values.
Later I add PFCG Tcode for same role P_TCODE. For the auth object S_USER_AGR , I am giving 22,21 field values.
My question is if the role is assigned to a user
1.     will he be able to create, change, display, & delete roles using PFCG ????
2.     What is the best way to restrict the users in create, change, display, & delete???
3.     For PFCG Tcode none of the Auth. Objs (the objects that are added by adding SU01 or PFCG Tcode VIA MENU)are maintained in the role what would be the implication??
Thanks,
VJ

Hi,
1.What is the purpose behind the calling of multiple Tcodes thru a single T.code .I mean to say, suppose, i require a C.Code object to be associated with a T.code for doing that, why i am connecting it to C.Code object of some other T.codes.
Many tcodes are customized to limit the access / risk. The best example is with SM30. If an user want to maintain a table, you can create a custom transaction which skips the intial screen (user don't need to enter the table name) and allows the user to edit the right or only one table rather than many.
You can connect your custom authorization object to F-67, it will not affect FBV1. the settings from FBV1 can be overwritten with the entries in F-67. use transaction SE93 to see more details and customization in transaction F-67.
2.If i assign a C.Code (let say 1000)thru object F_BKPF_BUKRS to a user,does it mean that,i don't need to assign that C.code to user again for access related to C.code 1000 in the accounting document area.Or is there anything like that, the C.Code access will be coded globally for that user for all C.code related access for FI, MM and SD.
Once you assign the authorization to a company code 1000 it means user has access to this company code across modules. This is subject to the transactions and thier authorization objects attached to them in other modules. Note that all the transactions doesn't perform authorization check for Company code.
3.Is there any T.code,from where i can associate a authorization object with a T.code.
You can use SU24 itself.
Hope it clarifies your queries.
Regards,
Gowrinadh

Under FI Auth Object F_BKPF_BUK is Activity 7 and 77 considered update?

Does the Activity 7 and or 77 alone or in combination with any other Activity in Auth Object F_BKPF_BUK give access greater than read or Display?

Hi,
01     Create or generate
02     Change
03     Display
06     Delete
07     Activate, generate
08     Display change documents
22     Enter, Include, Assign
43     Release
77     Pre-enter
C4     Decrypt Payment Card
activites for auth object F_BKPF_BUK .

SU24 on M_EINK_FRG auth object

Hello Gurs,
Requirement
To make the release code/group to Org filed . Currently is not a Org filed.
What I have done:
The auth object is M_EINK_FRG.
Before I make it org field, I was cleaning up some tcodes for eg : Me35 ,ME35K and ME28 to deactivate the object in SU24 ( meaning NO in the proposal u201Ctabu201D as no users are assigned to this tcode in production.
Question:
After capturing in transport I am getting pop up with " Data automatically corrected " message and changes are getting reflected in SU24 once I click on this pop green check mark button. no sure why
I have problem with this object only not which other auth object
Please suggestion or did you experience any of this sort
Damodar

I think he only wants the proposal flag as 'No', but then SU24 automatically corrects the value based on TSTCA.
See How to handle unwanted SU24 proposals which are automatically "corrected"? and the post by Keerti Vemulapali, which points to SAP note 1404093.
PS: What would be very usefull for an "automatic correction" would be in the case of report type transactions to check whether the submitted report has been assigned to an S_PROGRAM group, and fill that with p_action SUBMIT. Any chances..?
Cheers,
Julius

Help need in creation of auth object

Hi all,
can anyone assist me in creating an auth object to restrict users based on plant.
I would appreciate i anyone of you could send me screen shots of the procedure.
My email id is
<b><removed by moderator></b>
Thanks
Venki

Hi,
Basically you can use derived role and restric users based on plant...
Other than standard objects do you want to create auth objects.
For more information on you can follow link. info on objects
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_47x200/helpdata/en/ea/e9b0054c7211d189520000e829fbbd/frameset.htm
Cheers
Soma

Assigning an object a primative value[ compiler magic | documented] ?

I recently discovered something I was doing in code on J2SE (Mac & Sun) which I never recall knowing you could do. That is assigning an Object a primative an integral datatype, like a short. Example:
public class PrimativeTest {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        Object sp = getShortPrimative();
        Object so = getShortObject();
        Object da = (short) 34;
        System.out.println("primative version value: " + sp.toString() + " type: " + sp.getClass().toString());
        System.out.println("object version value: " + so.toString() + " type: " + so.getClass().toString());
        System.out.println("direct assignment version value: " + da.toString() + " type: " + da.getClass().toString());
    static short getShortPrimative() { return (short) 75; }
    static Short getShortObject() { return new Short((short) 25); }
}Produces:
primative version value: 75 type: class java.lang.Short
object version value: 25 type: class java.lang.Short
direct assignment version value: 34 type: class java.lang.Short
Don't get me wrong, I am using this, like it, and now know I am using it. I, however, cannot find where this is declared as a feature. My concern stems from some of this code is to run on J2ME in the future. How many implementations of that are there?
Can someone please link me up with the on-line doc that say this is legal.
Thank you

Good points about compiler settings. Am using Netbeans with CVS. I literally needed a spreadsheet to plan out which project goes to which platform (servlet, desktop, phone) all in advance.
Figuring out how to compile, assemble (obfuscate/sign), & preverify (for J2ME) common code is one of the reasons I said 'in the future' of my orginal post.
Back in the 'old days', I used Visual Sourcesafe doing VB programming, so I keep trying to figure out a way to make CVS solve my problem. With sourcesafe, one project had the source, but you could put an alias to that file in other projects. I do not want branches that drift apart. If that worked, I could just make three actually distributed projects with all the classes each needed, one of which was compiled using the Mobility pack.
Not really a subject for this forum, but thought I would expand on the issue raised.

BW Authorizations/Report. Auth Object/KF's vs. Calc. KF's

We implemented a custom/reporting auth. object to protect key figures (1KYFNM) and it works well. The issue is that our user community never ceases to come up with new and even more creative requirements.
Let me illustrate the latest requirement:
I have locked-down access to certain key figures (let's call them 'KF A' and 'KF B') and therefore subsequently secure all combinations involving either one of the two meaning calc. KF D (KF A plus KF C) is locked down as well. I also need to mention that users are supposed to be able to create their own ad-hoc queries, which eliminates the option of limiting them to a query or set of queries that accomplish the following requirement.
There are certain totals, which are calc. KF's that the users are allowed/required to see even though they are not supposed to see what makes up these numbers (they should see calc. KF K which is made up of KF A, KF B, and KF H, etc. but not KF A and KF B).
Without the option of providing the users with rather static queries, I see another option as calculating 'KF K' (from the previous example) at the time of the load and just making it another key figure in the cube which then can be excluded from the auth. check previously mentioned based on the naming convention. The problem with that is that this will make reporting rather inflexible, increase load times as this calculation is rather complicated, and it will also create redundant information in an environment that is already experiencing substantial growth and volume.
Does anyone see any other solution?
Thanks,
Joerg

Jeorg,
I'm afraid that there's no special authorization handling for calculated key figures. To my best knowledge, the approach to create another key figure at data load time via transfer rules or update rules would be the only one can work. While this approach may not be flexible, but the load time should not increase significantly if you just add two key figure values into a new one.
If you find this is approach is unacceptable or it is a common requirement among BW community, you might consider submit such requirement through ASUG BI Group or via OSS development request.
Thank you for your question and patience.
Regards,
Amelia Lo
SAP NetWeaver RIG, US
SAP Labs, LLC

How can I limit/control the addition of auth. objects to security roles?

Checking the authorization object S_USER_VAL it seemed that it grants the ability to limit the addition of authorization objects, but I tried using a test ID in sandbox along with a test role, removing the object, creating ranges in order to limit to a certaing type of auth. objects and didn't work. S_USER_AGR will give me access to limit which type of roles I can modify, but I'm looking to restrict the addition of specific security objects to security roles. If anyone knows the answer to this please share! Thanks in advance for your help!!!!
Edited by: Armando Salas on Nov 29, 2011 7:41 PM

Hi Armando,
Try with auth.obj. S_USER_AUT. A suggestion. Search this objects with tcode SU24, for instance, for tcode PFCG and it gives a list with objects.
I hope this helps you
Regards
Eduardo

Document type ZD does not allow you to assign to object MARA

hi ppl,
I have created a Z document type.but its not allowing me to assign in mm02.what might be the problem..? its throwing an error message Document type ZD does not allow you to assign to object MARA.

You need to enable object linking to mara on your new document type. Go to Tcode DC10, select the document type and then go to the object links area. Create a new object link for your document type.

Can we control Work center group links using auth object UIU_COMP

Hello All,
We are running into an issue while doing our PFCG role configuration.
I need to know if we can control Work center group links in a business role through auth object UIU_COMP.
We can control Workcenter's but not 'Work Center Group Links'.
Here is what we did:
- We have a business role Z_RA_DEFAULT.
- The Nav Bar Profile SRV-PRO for this business role has some work center group links that are checked in menu and visible.
- I'm trying to find the values in the auth object UIU_COMP to restrict Work center group links.
- Even though the values Work center group links are in menu and visible,
I want to remove these Work center group links from the screen using the auth object.
- If we remove the check from in menu and visible in the business role the Work center group links disapper from the screen.
Right now this is only way we are able to controle Work center group links.
Question:
- Can I use UIU_COMP to restrict Work center group links?
- any another auth object that controle Work center group links?
- any document/ website / info available which tells us what can we restrict with auth object UIU_COMP?
- or any other way of doing this... like code change, user exit, ....?
Really appreciate your help.
Thanks,
Nasir

I am not sure if I have understood the issue correctly, but still what stops you from actually creating a clone business role to your existing business role and deactivating the in menu visible work center group links. Use this new business role for users who need to be prevented from viewing the work center groups links in question.
If you are going to use authorization objects to control the visibility wont it impact all users (still defeating your original purpose?)
Again apologies in case I have got the question wrong.

Assign auth. object to infoprovider

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for